Monday, September 1, 2008

Yes, I'll soon be writing about why I still love my Atari and engaging in the typical nonsense that people expect from me. Besides, people take politics too seriously. I've got a degree in political science and, as such, realize that opposing views are essential to a functioning democracy. To that end, taking politics personally ranges from idiotic to downright insane. Got a view that's different from mine? A good exchange of ideas could help get us closer to the truth, right?

So I'll steer clear of politics soon. People tend to get too hot and bothered over them and that's no fun.

For now, however, I just can't help talking about that Sarah Palin some more. Why? Because watching the Democrats go absolutely crazy over the past few days has been a lot of fun.

I do believe they view Palin as a threat for at least one monumentally important reason -- the Republican base is excited again. Believe it or not, a lot of us Republicans simply detest his father. He's been an embarrassment for the past eight years and has essentially destroyed Ronald Reagan's legacy. We Republicans have been able to sit back for years and say, "Oh, yeah? Look at what a disaster Carter was. At least we didn't inflict a Jimmy Carter on the nation!"

Well, we can't claim that anymore. Bush sucks as bad as Carter did and, in some ways, might actually be worse.

Bush's father wasn't worth a damn, either. The fact that we've only had Bush's in the White House since Reagan left is enough to make anyone start thinking that a third party is a great idea.

At any rate -- Reagan. Remember him? He's the one that took the South from the Democrats and had the philosophy that government was the problem -- not the solution -- to problems. Yes, getting the government out of the way and letting individuals excel was key to Reagan's philosophy and voters responded in kind.

Fast forward a few years and you've got the current crop of Republicans who approach the use of power much in the same way that the Democrats do. They use it like a damned club, as something to be enlarged and strengthened so as to further a "correct" agenda. The current crop of Republicans differ from Democrats only in how they want to pound the hapless citizenry over the heads.

In other words, Republicans ought to be about shrinking government, limiting what power it has and giving states more authority. The Bushites have forgotten all about that ideal. Oh, they'll give us tax cuts (we Republicans love those), but the government keeps getting larger, more intrusive and more expensive (what good are tax cuts when you have no intention of shrinking the government?)

So, in comes Palin. She comes across as a Reaganite, a reformer and a straight-shooter. Furthermore, she's one of those middle class folks who made good -- a populist rather than one of the elitists that we're used to seeing run for office. Furthermore, she's an outsider in a year when people are suspicious of Washington insiders who are blamed for the messes we've got springing up all over the place.

In short, people like her. That's a problem for the Democrats.

What has been fun to watch over the weekend, however, is just how the Democrats have chosen to attack Palin. Yes, they're out to smear the girl and they're grasping at straws. Here are some of my favorite attacks:

1. She lacks experience and she's just a heartbeat away from the presidency. Amazingly, lacking experience is somehow less important if you're last name happens to be Obama. The Democrats have been arguing with a straight face that an inexperienced vice-president is somehow worse than an inexperienced president.

The insulting companion to that argument suggests that all Palin has done is become governor of a rural, hick state. Her small-town roots have been bashed and she's been portrayed as a backwoods hick.

That was dirty pool when the Republicans did it to Clinton and it's dirty pool now. Both the "she's not experienced" and the "she's a backwoods hick" arguments will come back to haunt the Democrats.

2. Troopergate. Outraged Democrats have suggested that Palin abused her power by dismissing a commissioner who wouldn't fire a state trooper. The state trooper was the ex-husband of Palin's sister, so there are charges of abuses of power all over the place.

There are two problems with that argument. First of all, the commissioner in question served completely at the governor's discretion. Palin could dismiss that public safety commissioner for pretty much any damned reason she wanted. Yes, she's being investigated and we'll see how it all turns out, of course, but how much do you want to bet there was no wrongdoing found on Palin's part?

Second, it smacks of hypocrisy to hear Democrats jump up and down about an alleged abuse of power. You want to see some abuse? Come on down here to Arkansas and study up on the gubernatorial career of Bill Clinton? Having troopers escorting tarts around and using the state government to crush enemies is what I'd define as an abuse of power.

But, hey, that's how politics goes, isn't it? "It's okay if we do it, you can't!"

3. Babygate. Here's where things get truly, truly strange. There's been a charge that Palin covered up her teenage daughter's pregnancy by claiming that she gave birth to a fifth child. That nasty little charge is being pursued with a zeal that makes those 9/11 conspiracists look sane. Strange.

4. She's anti-woman. Here's another odd one. Apparently, rising to power against a bunch of men in a state like Alaska isn't enough to advance the Great Cause. Unless a woman thinks and acts like a Democrat, she's somehow standing in the way of progress.

And she's a beauty queen, to boot. Uh oh!

I don't quite get that argument, honestly. I was raised by a very Republican woman who put herself through school and, eventually, wound up with a doctorate in psychology. She was viewed as an "uppity woman" in the 1970s in this hometown of mine because she had the gall to establish a career that didn't involve taking notes and answering phones for a professional man. She put up with all of that racket nonsense went on to be a tremendous success.

I suppose, then, she's not someone to look up to because she hasn't adopted the beliefs of the Democratic party. That's nonsense and such sloppy thinking ought not be tolerated. I admire the heck out of my Reaganite mother, and I admire Sarah Palin, too.

Yes, she's pro-life, but I'd be willing to wager that there are a lot of women out there who believe that a fetus is a person and, as such, ought to be protected. Holding that view, evidently, gets someone marked as being anti-woman these days regardless of sex.

5. She was just picked to woo some Hillary voters over to McCain. There may be some truth to that, but what of it? How much do you want to be that Biden was picked, in part, to win over some skittish whites who were uncertain about whether to vote for a black man? What's the difference between that and choosing a woman to run as vice president in hopes of convincing women that McCain is worth a second look?

On the whole, however, it's pretty clear that Biden was picked to balance out the ticket. He has the experience that Obama lacks and has been around for long enough to have a number of supporters. Palin was picked for the same reason -- she's got the youthful enthusiasm that McCain lacks, counters McCain's "insider" status and is being presented as the future of the Republican party. And, of course, she is a Reaganite and that appeals to those of us who are sick of Bush and his crap and have come to view McCain as just another Bush lackey.

Conclusion

I'm truly interested to see what will be used to attack Palin next. Will she get beaten with the same disguised chauvinism that was used to bash Hillary over the head? Possibly, and there's always the chance things will get worse as Palin isn't a Democrat. If history has shown us anything, it's that the Democrats tend to prefer minorities and women with contempt if they dare cling to a political philosophy that isn't in line with what the left is certain is the correct one.

So, good luck to Palin. I do believe McCain made a great choice for a running mate and we'll get to watch the Democrats stew in their own hypocrisy as they dig up whatever mud they can find to fling at her.By the way...

Apparently, a hell of a lot of people are hopping on Google and searching for photos of Sarah Palin in the Miss Alaska swimsuit competition. Yes, it seems people just can't wait to get a photo of a potential vice president wearing a bikini.

That's funny on a number of levels...

I might not have a photo of Palin in a swimsuit, but I was able to find a very groovy one of a young Bill and Hillary Clinton and have included it here. Enjoy!

24 comments:

John McSame actually believes that the women of this country backed Hilliary because she was one of them. It was not Clinton’s gender that attracted a large following, rather it was her message. McCain’s choice of a right wing, gun toting, Steppford wife from Alaska illustrates how little he really understands about middle class America. By his choosing a nobody as running mate, someone no one ever heard of is an insult to the intelligence of American women.

@mad celt, I gotta think Juan's choice is not as simplistic as putting a woman in the slot so the Hilary fans will have a woman to vote for. It's not just about puting a skirt on the ballot. I agree w/Hawg that it's about recognizing that there are a significant number of Hilary democrats that perceive Obama as a dangerous radical, but are not ready to vote for a Bush cronie, so they are either going to (a) stay home, (b) hold the party line and vote for Nobama anyway, or (c) throw away the vote on a third party. Palin may get some of these people to decide the McCain/Palin ticket is better than McCain/?insert elite white Washington insider here?.

Agree that Juan's choice is aimed to attract Reagan conservatives, a very good choice IMO.

Agree that Bush's last four years have been, um, BAD - but I will say for the record that on 9/11/01, I was literally on my knees thanking God that Bush was in the White House and not Al Gore. Think about what that might have looked like. Yikes.

You missed the latest garbage circulating. She has a felony on her record. You need to Google the entire story. It's laughable, yet it's making the rounds. BTW, we have had a Democratic Congress for the last 2 years or so. They really straightened everything out, didn't they?

excellent post, despite the fact i'm not a republican. either way, this election is going to be a circus, i'm just going to sit back and watch (since as a resident, and not a citizen, i am ineligible to vote anyway) the chaos that ensues.

@Da Old Man: fantastic point. to make my agenda perfectly clear, i'm now 100% against the war in iraq, i feel, like viet nam, we have no business there. the democrats went in hard two years ago about getting out, they were voted in... and... nothing.

obama, for being a democrat, has shown absolutely no solid plan for getting the hell out of that country, so i'm left with the impression that the only thing he plans on really "changing" is the color of the skin of the guy behind the desk in the oval office.

i can't stand hillary's stance on guns or censorship, but at least she'd have taken the country in a different direction, i'm under the impression obama just likes talking about it vaguely.

The Mad Celt -- I wouldn't describe her as a Steppford wife -- she's achieved quite a bit on her own. And I do believe she's a good representative of middle America in that she's achieved a hell of lot on her own.

I don't perceive this move as an insult to the intelligence of American women -- floating out the assumption that women can only be represented effectively by a Democrat, on the other hand, is entirely insulting. And it's no more insulting that putting an old white guy on the ballot in hopes of picking up some votes from people who balk at the prospect of voting for a black guy.

What's wrong with a right-wing, gun-toting woman, anyway?

Sara -- Not really. I'll be damned if I'll be in the position of defending that pinhead Bush or his rotten father as arguing over whether Bush Jr. or Carter was worth is rather akin to asking someone if they'd prefer to be drowned or beaten to death. Either one if pretty terrible.

However, look at Carter's legacy. The formerly "Solid South" was broken up as a direct reaction to how terrible Carter was. The impact of that is still being felt 28 years after the fact. Carter shot the Democratic party in the head and the echoes are still being felt.

Fwaggle -- I, too, agree with the old man. Nancy Pelosi has done nothing but collect pantsuits and huge pearl necklaces -- nothing real revolutionary has come from her or her party since the Dems took over both houses.

Yep. It's a circus, for sure -- pretty much like the past couple of elections. This time around, however, I don't despise everyone running -- just three of them.

Most women are not just sheep to be herded where the estrogen is. Of course Dems aren't going to like Palin -- she's REPUBLICAN.

She stated in March she would not take the VP and she had no intention of leaving her job a governor. She was not properly vetted, so this seems to me like McCain went through his "A" list and had to settle with Palin, because no other woman with a brain in her head would run with him.

Palin is very likely, given McCain's age and health problems, that if elected, she'll have to step into the Big Shoes. Are y'all ready for that? Someone with no foreign policy and limited political experience? (Mayor twice of a small town, pop. 6 - 8000, and not even a full term as governor.)

I talked to my mother this past weekend. She owns a restaurant in North Carolina. (I live in Arkansas.)

She has several large, flat screen televisions in her place of business. She told me that when Palin was introduced at the McCain rally, everyone in the restaurant hushed, and asked for the volume to be turned up.

Several executives were eating in her establishment, including part-owner of the Carolina Panthers. No one would leave. They were all glued to the television, and cheered throughout Palin's speech. They were now excited about the GOP ticket.

Look, I tell people I'm a Conservative, not a Republican. I believe in lower taxes and smaller government.

I believe that most politicians are the problem, not the solution. If we can get people in office who are not career politicians, who only work to get re-elected, then I'm all for it.

People in office work FOR the people. Instead, right now, the people are working for the those in office.

Netta -- You're right of course -- assuming that women will line up to vote for Hillary because she's a woman is as ridiculous as assuming they'll support Palin for the same reason. There are some idiotic assumptions made on both sides of the aisle in that regard.

And I'm as willing to trust an inexperienced governor in the presidency as much as I'm willing to trust an inexperienced senator. The difference, of course, is that the Republicans are running the inexperienced candidate as a vice president.

The Democrats, on the other hand, have someone with little to no foreign policy experience as the frontrunner.

Again, "experience" just isn't an issue here. If it becomes a central one, then Obama needs to pack his bags and get ready to report back to the Senate.

Paul -- And that's, really, what Palin brings to the ticket. Forget about those who suggest she was chosen to woo women and the rest of that stuff.

She's gotten the Republican base excited. Most of us were ready to do what we did back in 2004 -- just go crap out a vote for the Republican because we absolutely hated who the Democrats ran.

It's actually refreshing to look forward to an election again. We'll get rid of that Bush bastard and may well set a Reaganite on the road to the White House.

*big sigh* You're gonna make me do it, aren't you (btw, I see my fellow Goddess, Netta, has weighed in...lol...)

You know, I was a Republican. I grew up in the (at the time) only Republican county in Arkansas. I was Republican until that fool Bush screwed the pooch.

Now, I'm a registered "independent" not as in "independent party" but as in a no party affiliation what so ever.

You're right...know what? A two party system if doomed to fail. For it to be fair, we need at least three strong parties.

I used to like McCain, I liked McCain back when he ran against Bush and I would have voted for him. I felt sorry for McCain when Bush was re-elected. I felt like McCain was put on the spot and didn't believe as Bush did, but had to tow the party line.

But now, other than his environmental policy, he is NO DIFFERENT than Bush. I, for one, won't vote for more of the same.

Know what? I'll take my chances with Obama, because he really can't do any more damage than Bush already did. You can't go lower than a rattlesnake's belly and we're already there.

And this Palin chick? *sigh* I don't even know where to begin...(deep breaths, deep breaths) I'm just going to stop now...lol

BTW, what restaurant does your mother own? It has to be in Charlotte, right? To have executives and a Panther player.

I'm loving it. When you're getting a lot of flak, you know you're over the target. Keep the shots at her inexperience coming, leftists. But remember something.

True, she is the former mayor of a small town. So that is limited executive experience on a small scale.

Obama is the former mayor of... well, nowhere.

True, she is a first term Governor of Alaska. So, that is half a term of executive experience.

Obama is the former Governor of... well, nowhere.

The more you tout the limited experience of the first term Governor, the more it highlights the inexperience of the first term Senator.

So, at the end of the day, we have limited executive level experience running for the second seat in the Country. They have NO executive level experience, and limited experience on any level, for the first seat in the Country.

So remind me again why I should vote for your brand of inexperience? Oh, yea. That's right. Because if I vote for experience, he might die, and then we get inexperience. So I should just forgo the experience offered and take inexperience right off the bat.

Every shot taken at Palin is a direct hit on Obama, so keep them coming commenters. To the Hawg, nice article man. It's a good read. Nice laid back take on the situation.

Lala -- As I've said, always feel free to chime in. You host is friendly and encourages dissenting views. The problem with politics is that people get so damned serious about them.

If I had my way, the government would be small enough that we wouldn't feel the need to engage in such hysteria every four years. An alternative, of course, would be to have the best of the best running so that even those on the losing side wouldn't feel all that bad (the latest Arkansas gubernatorial race comes to mind -- Beebe and Hutchinson were both quality candidates, so I wasn't crying in my beer when the Democrat won).

Having said that, I'm not sure I agree that a two-party system is doomed to fail. The old Republic has thrived off of two partiesmfighting out for quite some time now. As we've learned from the Federalists and the Whigs, those two parties are subject to change.

As for Obama, his grand design to increase social services bothers the hell out of me. What that means is that tax benefits enjoyed by "the rich" (i.e., anyone with a job that pays somewhere above minimum wage) will be rolled back and we'll get hammered. I'm finally at a point in life where I make a comfortable living, but not so comfortable that my wife can quit her job. I well remember being dirt poor and I'd rather not be taxed back to that point.

For all of his moderate talk, Obama is a raging socialist -- a member of a group that is in the habit of viewing my money as something that belongs to the government and, as such, can be confiscated at will.

So, yes, Palin appeals to me as she does come across as a Reaganite. Selecting her signals a return to the ideal of limited government and lower taxes. Those are ideals that have largely been abandoned by Bush and his filthy bunch, so I remain hopeful that the Republican Party is making an attempt to get back to its roots. We'll wait and see.

Steve -- It has been fun watching the left dig up everything they can find to throw at Palin, hasn't it? I particularly enjoy the "experience" argument as I can't imagine any Obama supporter howling about a lack of experience with a straight face.

As the frenzy continues, the attacks get more chauvinistic as we go along ("She's a beauty queen! She sure is pretty! How can she responsibly raise five kids and maintain a career?")

I am very excited with the Republican campaign now because of Palin. I think that based on her past achievements, and what she stood for while serving in Alaska, will bring in better ideas that will benifit us all. I am not worried at all if she would have to take over for big John, I am ready for something new in the White House, and new to me does not mean SOCIALISM. Yeah I said it, let the hate mail flow

L.A. -- Venezuela is socialist, too, and they've been having nothing but trouble lately.

And, yes, a number of us do understand the difference between socialism and communism and would rather avoid either one. We can look at the failed socialist reforms in our own nation (that ponzi scheme called Social Security and Johnson's "Great Society" for example) to see what we're in for should we decide to let the government run health care.

The fact of the matter is that most Americans have health care plans that work. Rather than scrap what works for the majority because the system has failed the minority, why not look at ways to plug the uninsured into the existing system?

That in the works now -- a bill that allows small businesses and the self-employed to take advantage of the discounts that come through the pooling available to larger corporations. Add tort reform to that and you've got a plan that may well work.

At any rate, I doubt anyone is "afraid" of socialism. Rather, a good number of us do believe that liberty flows as a matter of course from limited government.

Really enjoyed your post. As a moderate Democrat who voted for Reagan and was behind Hillary all the way, I am delighted with McCain's choice of Gov. Palin as his VP. No, I don't agree with her on a number of social issues, but I believe her executive experience will be more important than her stance on these issues.

I think that to group women together as a single-minded entity is sexist for certain and bordering on misogynistic. Women are as varied and educated as men and to think otherwise is ignorant and wrong. (No Hawg I am not addressing you but the multitudes of idiots who think that all women are in some lock step.) Palin will continue to have her trial by fire. I think yesterday's revelations about her decision to run knowing full well that her teenage daughter was pregnant is merely the opening salvo. IMHO, Palin's decision to thrust her daughter into the media glare at what may be a very difficult time does not show very good judgment. I think there will be much more to come if she remains a candidate.

Patricia -- She does have a lot of appeal, that Palin. She really does have the air of that politically-aware, nice person who might strike up a conversation with you at a baseball game. I do like her views as she's a Reaganite.

I miss Ronnie. The Bush boys have all but destroyed his legacy with their dimwitted shenanigans, so seeing someone like Palin come along is refreshing.

Rich -- We agree on that. Assuming all women will be for one candidate and against another is as idiotic as assuming that, well, all men will do the same thing. That will be the case so long as we're "individuals" rather than "members of a group."

The Commentator -- I do believe that was one of the reasons she was chosen. Everything the Democrats lob at her will point right back at them.

Isn't it amazing how ineffective Russian propaganda is when you don't have the Kremlin threatening to murder or jail anyone who doesn't swallow whatever the government tells them?

Oh, but, Netta, didn't you hear? She DOES have foreign policy experience given the proximity of her state to Russian...much in the same way that people from Texas are foreign policy experts given their proximity to Mexico, and those in N. Dakota given their proximity to Canada. Oh, and considering that I'm married to a Brit, I'm ambassador to England.

I, for one, will be thrilled once we get Yosemite Sam out of office. Yosemite McSame surely isn't getting my vote either. I'd LOVE to see a woman as vice president (or president, for that matter) but certainly not Palin!